FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 47/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the Company since 1969. The worker has been in his present position since 1982. His duties involve cleaning various facilities, collections of groceries, meals, keeping records, laundry, etc. The worker sought an upgrading in 1985 and Management gave an undertaking to consider the claim. In 1988, the Company and the Union agreed the introduction of a new grading system and when Management came to consider the worker's claim a dispute arose with regard to the exact job description of the worker. Certain duties performed by him were excluded in the job description drawn up by Management. The Company eventually agreed to include the duties in question but only with effect from 1996. This was unacceptable to the Union as it limits the retrospection which could apply if the post was upgraded. Management was only prepared to give retrospection to 1996. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 15th of July, 1998, the Rights Commissioner issued his findings and recommendation as follows:
"....I am satisfied that the Society's position is a reasonable one and should be accepted by the worker and by SIPTU. Such an acceptance would allow the job description to be signed and the worker's post to be examined in the near future. In the circumstances I recommend accordingly."
On the 6th of August, 1998, the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 19th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The retrospection date of 1996 is unacceptable. The worker has been carrying out his present duties since 1985 and it was in that year that the upgrading claim was served., therefore any retrospection should go back to 1985.
2. The whole sequence of events, which led to the dispute taking such an lengthy time to be served, were totally outside the worker's control. He therefore, should not be penalised for this delay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the claimant's case considerable time and effort was spent, without success in agreeing the contents of his job description. This was due to the fact that a facility was granted to the workers in the factory that one of their number would be allowed to shop on their behalf and collect prepared meals from the central canteen. This function was carried out by the claimant but it was not recognised as part of his normal duties. Travelling expenses are paid to the claimant for carrying out these ancillary duties. Following protracted discussions, it was finally agreed to include the ancillary duties in the job description. The worker, however, refused to sign the job description, which is normal practice prior to grading a job, until such time as a retrospective date was agreed.
2. Management, in an effort to resolve the issue, agreed that as the inclusion of those duties was done to expedite the matter in 1996 any retrospection in the event of job upgrading would be paid from that date. The offer of retrospection to 1996 in fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the decision to agree the inclusion of the disputed duties in the job description of the claimant was conditional on acceptance of 1996 as the date for any retrospection.
However, the Court in an attempt to reach conclusion on this claim recommends that the Company agree to 1994 as the date for any retrospection and that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th June, 1999.______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.